Does the bible state Jesus was sinless?

[FHC4ALL]

My protestant friend says that Mary being sinless contradicts the bible because the bible states that no one is sinless except Jesus. I cannot find that anywhere, am I missing it? I know it states that no one is sinless or without fault but not explicitly that Jesus is sinless.

Thank you,
Karen

 

[zarthan]

My protestant friend says that Mary being sinless contradicts the bible because the bible states that no one is sinless except Jesus. I cannot find that anywhere, am I missing it? I know it states that no one is sinless or without fault but not explicitly that Jesus is sinless.

Thank you,
Karen

Karen:

“By two or three witnesses a thing is established”.

The apostle Peter: 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22.
The apostle Paul: 2 Corinth. 5:21.
Writer of Hebrews: Heb, 4:15; 7:26; 9:14, 28.
Jesus himself: John 8:46.

God bless you in your desire to know the truth.

 

[Scoobyshme]

My protestant friend says that Mary being sinless contradicts the bible because the bible states that no one is sinless except Jesus. I cannot find that anywhere, am I missing it? I know it states that no one is sinless or without fault but not explicitly that Jesus is sinless.

Thank you,
Karen

Actually, the Bible DOES say that Mary was sinless. In Luke 1:28, when the angel appeared to Mary, he addressed her as “full of grace” which is a loose translation into English which misses much. The actual Greek word used there was kecharitomene which means that Mary was “full of grace” from the first moment of her existence (conception), permanently through the rest of her life. This is where we get the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Here’s an article on it:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

You might further explain that no one before the age of reason can sin, since sin is knowingly saying, “No!” to God. Therefore, all who are not yet of the age of reason are sinless. If they die before they reach the age of reason, they will have lived their whole lives sinless. Same for the mentally handicapped.

Heb. 4:15 says that Jesus was sinless.

And, from a logical standpoint, since Jesus is God, He could not have sinned, since He could not have said, “No!” to Himself.

 

[Barbkw]

Eve and Adam were also created sinless or full of grace - until they took it upon themselves to forsake that grace and God.

 

[Barbkw]

P.S.

Protestant bibles NEVER read “full of grace” in Luke. They instead read that Mary was “highly favored”.

Even the Catholic NAB, states “highly favored”. (Which really ticks me off).

 

[Scoobyshme]

P.S.

Protestant bibles NEVER read “full of grace” in Luke. They instead read that Mary was “highly favored”.

Even the Catholic NAB, states “highly favored”. (Which really ticks me off).

Barb, do you think for one instance that their translation is an accident? Methinks not. They want to stay as far away from Catholic doctrine as possible, because it might prove them wrong.

 

[Barbkw]

Positive, it was no accident.

In addition, Bibles used by protestant denominations, reinterpret Genesis 3:15, so that it isn’t a women who stands on the head of the snake.

Douay Rheims:

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

 

[zarthan]

Positive, it was no accident.

In addition, Bibles used by protestant denominations, reinterpret Genesis 3:15, so that it isn’t a women who stands on the head of the snake.

Douay Rheims:

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”

I don’t think it is necessarily a Protestant translation, it is also Jewish, and also the NAB that does not translate it this way.

Rom.16:20 speaks of the church in Rome of crushing satan under its feet.

Ireneaus speaks of Jesus Christ being the one to bruise the head of satan.

The Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII speaks of every baptized person bruising the head of Satan.

So, it is possible that Jesus Christ primarily crushed the head of Satan at Golgotha, Mary bruised the head of Satan by her obedience, and the church itself as the bride of Christ, and the new Eve, individually, or corporally through Jesus Christ bruise the head of Satan

 

[rocketrob]

The bible does state that Jesus was sinless in several places. Here are a few:

2 Cor 5:21
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Heb 4:15
“For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning.”

1 Pet 1:19
“…but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.”

rocketrob

 

[mindlight]

Actually, the Bible DOES say that Mary was sinless. In Luke 1:28, when the angel appeared to Mary, he addressed her as “full of grace” which is a loose translation into English which misses much. The actual Greek word used there was kecharitomene which means that Mary was “full of grace” from the first moment of her existence (conception), permanently through the rest of her life. This is where we get the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Here’s an article on it:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

You might further explain that no one before the age of reason can sin, since sin is knowingly saying, “No!” to God. Therefore, all who are not yet of the age of reason are sinless. If they die before they reach the age of reason, they will have lived their whole lives sinless. Same for the mentally handicapped.

Heb. 4:15 says that Jesus was sinless.

And, from a logical standpoint, since Jesus is God, He could not have sinned, since He could not have said, “No!” to Himself.

Jesus is sinless indeed the whole of the Romans narrative about the man from the earth and the heavenly man- about Adam and Jesus requires a perfect man who makes the right choice of obedience to undo the false one of rebellion made by Adam.

But just cause Mary was “full of grace” when hailed by the angel does not mean she never sinned. Peter was full of grace when he preached at Pentecost by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Stephen was “full of grace” just before he was stoned to death as the first martyr. That an eternal presence can graciously dwell in us does not mean that we the recipients and vessels of that grace are perfect because of that presence. Peter sinned when he denied Jesus Christ. While we have no clear statement that Mary sinned we have no clear statement that she did not either.

 

[PJM]

=FHC4ALL;7178895]My protestant friend says that Mary being sinless contradicts the bible because the bible states that no one is sinless except Jesus. I cannot find that anywhere, am I missing it? I know it states that no one is sinless or without fault but not explicitly that Jesus is sinless.

Thank you,
Karen

Luke 1: 26-35" In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus…[34] And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” And the angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you,and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

God in order to be God must be and can ONLY be sinless.

Not EVERYTHING in the bible is litteral [yet everything remains true in IT"S MESSAGE]
Read:Matt. 7:3-5 for example.

Mary in an ABSOLUTE sense had to be sinless inorder to qualify as the Mother of a Perfect God. This was a singular gift of God to Mary.

[John 21 4-5 POINTS OUT THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS IN THE BIBLE: " This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written"

Quite simply Mary had to b perfect inorder for Christ to be perfect. If one finds this hard to accept; **READ Exodus Chapter 25 and what Yahweh DEMANDED for His Ark of The Covenant. PURE GOLD!

If God demanded this for “the Spirit of God” could / would He expect less fo the Living tabernacle of God? OF COURSE NOT!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Going back to Genesis 3:15, the Hebrew was ambiguous, and different manuscripts attest to this ambiguity. Some say the woman did the crushing, others the seed. It really is missing the point, however, since the overall picture regardless of translation is the woman and her child are shown together in opposition to the devil. One under sin cannot fight sin. I personally find this an even more powerful attestation to Mary’s sinlessness than the “full of grace” argument, because then you can sidestep the translation issues inherent in both, and rely on a broader Scriptural truth. Consequently, Genesis 3:15 is also my starting point for arguing the necessity of the Assumption. Those without original sin do not taste the effects of sin. This Protoevangelion is bar none one of my favorite Marian apologetic passages in the Bible. I include it in nearly every topic, because it has so much cross-over.

 

[zarthan]

Going back to Genesis 3:15, the Hebrew was ambiguous, and different manuscripts attest to this ambiguity. Some say the woman did the crushing, others the seed. It really is missing the point, however, since the overall picture regardless of translation is the woman and her child are shown together in opposition to the devil. One under sin cannot fight sin. I personally find this an even more powerful attestation to Mary’s sinlessness than the “full of grace” argument, because then you can sidestep the translation issues inherent in both, and rely on a broader Scriptural truth. Consequently, Genesis 3:15 is also my starting point for arguing the necessity of the Assumption. Those without original sin do not taste the effects of sin. This Protoevangelion is bar none one of my favorite Marian apologetic passages in the Bible. I include it in nearly every topic, because it has so much cross-over.

Nathan Wagar:

There is also the possibility that the ‘woman’ is heavenly Jerusalem (the mother of us all) in so far as her children are at emnity with the children of satan. Surely, there are Eastern Orthodox catholics who may be inclined to believe as you, but the Virgin Mary being free from original sin is not such a dogma for their church.

Of course, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary would logically follow from the dogma of her sinlessness.

As far as the Protoevangelium, it seems quite unlikely that this book was written by James nor any other Jewish person. The Mosaic law regarding temple sacrifices and temple ritual would not support several incidents in this book.

These ‘dogmas’ on the Virgin Mary seem to be the outgrowth of a very disputed definition of the person of the Son of God, who became flesh. This took place at about the time of Emperor Constantine, and unfortunately the Emperor involved himself in trying to settle such differences. Sometimes, I think the church would have been better off if she had left some of the mystery about the Christ, the Son of the living God behind, and never quibbled ad invinitum over certain Greek words.

Everything said has been from the perspective of much reading of the scriptures, the early church fathers, and various perspectives of Catholic teaching. My dear wife is a traditional Roman Catholic and we respect each other. My hope is that Western and Eastern Catholics do the same, even with those of us who need Ante-Nicene tradition and scripture in order to believe these particular dogmas of the Roman Catholic church.

My hope is that Western and Eastern Catholics would respect each other’s differences and join together in the unity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[rcjones]

And, from a logical standpoint, since Jesus is God, He could not have sinned, since He could not have said, “No!” to Himself.

If he could not have sinned, then the kenosis and incarnation was a fraud, and he was not tempted in every way that we are, and we are left without a high priest.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

So he could have sinned, but did not.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Nathan Wagar:

There is also the possibility that the ‘woman’ is heavenly Jerusalem (the mother of us all) in so far as her children are at emnity with the children of satan. Surely, there are Eastern Orthodox catholics who may be inclined to believe as you, but the Virgin Mary being free from original sin is not such a dogma for their church.

Of course, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary would logically follow from the dogma of her sinlessness.

As far as the Protoevangelium, it seems quite unlikely that this book was written by James nor any other Jewish person. The Mosaic law regarding temple sacrifices and temple ritual would not support several incidents in this book.

These ‘dogmas’ on the Virgin Mary seem to be the outgrowth of a very disputed definition of the person of the Son of God, who became flesh. This took place at about the time of Emperor Constantine, and unfortunately the Emperor involved himself in trying to settle such differences. Sometimes, I think the church would have been better off if she had left some of the mystery about the Christ, the Son of the living God behind, and never quibbled ad invinitum over certain Greek words.

Everything said has been from the perspective of much reading of the scriptures, the early church fathers, and various perspectives of Catholic teaching. My dear wife is a traditional Roman Catholic and we respect each other. My hope is that Western and Eastern Catholics do the same, even with those of us who need Ante-Nicene tradition and scripture in order to believe these particular dogmas of the Roman Catholic church.

My hope is that Western and Eastern Catholics would respect each other’s differences and join together in the unity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I would point out that if one is to be methodical in his exegetical approach to this passage, it is disingenuous to apply a literal and symbolic layer to the child, but then only a symbolic layer to the woman. This is an uneven method, and does not do justice to the multi-layered nature of Biblical prophecy. It also creates a contradiction (similar to interpreting the “woman” in Revelation 12:1 simply as the Church/Israel), because how can the Church precede and give birth to it’s saviour? The woman’s seed is the messiah, and the plural indicates more seed in conjunction with the messiah, which would indicate the Church. Can she serve as a symbol of the Church? Absolutely. But making her only the Church in a strict sense creates contradictions and defeats the purpose of the strong symbology. If the seed is literal, and figurative, the serpent is literal, yet figurative, then the woman must be literal, and yet figurative.

The protoevangelion refers to the passage Genesis 3:15, and means “first gospel, or good news,” it is not the same as the apocryphal work attributed to James that you refer to. Similar name, but not what I was referring to.

As for the statement about leaving the mysteries to be mysteries, I can understand your position, but considering that the nature of dogma tended to be in response to heresies, even a cursory study of the many heresies being combatted against by the western Church at that time necessitated a more narrowed definition. And really, the mystery hasn’t gone anywhere. I defy you to really explain the hypostatic union in a way that makes sense. At the end of the day we throw up our hands and say “you alone know, God.”

 

[zarthan]

I would point out that if one is to be methodical in his exegetical approach to this passage, it is disingenuous to apply a literal and symbolic layer to the child, but then only a symbolic layer to the woman. This is an uneven method, and does not do justice to the multi-layered nature of Biblical prophecy. It also creates a contradiction (similar to interpreting the “woman” in Revelation 12:1 simply as the Church/Israel), because how can the Church precede and give birth to it’s saviour? The woman’s seed is the messiah, and the plural indicates more seed in conjunction with the messiah, which would indicate the Church. Can she serve as a symbol of the Church? Absolutely. But making her only the Church in a strict sense creates contradictions and defeats the purpose of the strong symbology. If the seed is literal, and figurative, the serpent is literal, yet figurative, then the woman must be literal, and yet figurative.

The protoevangelion refers to the passage Genesis 3:15, and means “first gospel, or good news,” it is not the same as the apocryphal work attributed to James that you refer to. Similar name, but not what I was referring to.

As for the statement about leaving the mysteries to be mysteries, I can understand your position, but considering that the nature of dogma tended to be in response to heresies, even a cursory study of the many heresies being combatted against by the western Church at that time necessitated a more narrowed definition. And really, the mystery hasn’t gone anywhere. I defy you to really explain the hypostatic union in a way that makes sense. At the end of the day we throw up our hands and say “you alone know, God.”

Nathan: All your points are expressed well and well taken, and I stand corrected regarding the protoevangelion (I need to read what it says).

As far as this statement of yours: ** It also creates a contradiction (similar to interpreting the “woman” in Revelation 12:1 simply as the Church/Israel), because how can the Church precede and give birth to it’s saviour? **

I respond in the same way, to the Apostle Paul who says that ‘the Jerusalem above is the mother of us all.’ Then when we read Revelation, we find that ‘heavenly Jerusalem is the bride of Christ’. How can heavenly Jerusalem be both our mother, and the bride of Christ? My only explanation is that Jesus Christ was naturally born of the patriarchs of Israel, who are now members of heavenly Jerusalem. This heavenly Jerusalem is our spiritual mother giving birth to us spiritual children here on earth. When the mystical body of Christ, the church on earth is perfected, then heavenly Jerusalem will be made manifest in its fulness and glory.

Nevertheless, the ‘woman’ in Genesis and in Revelation 12 may also represent the blessed Virgin Mary, and I should have clarified that.

Truly I thank you, for your clarifications. Peace.

 

[PJM]

=rcjones;7180885]If he could not have sinned, then the kenosis and incarnation was a fraud, and he was not tempted in every way that we are, and we are left without a high priest.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

So he could have sinned, but did not.

***My dear friend in Christ Jesus our Lord,

I fear you miss the finer point of the passage you quote.

Can has never meant should, nor in this case does can [the ability] mean that one has to in an absolute sense sin. Our “FREEWILL” like Chist FREEWILL always presents the option to sin or not to sin. Christ being a perfecy God always [in both His Divine and human natures] freely choose NOT to sin. In this instance Christ human nature is led by His Divine nature; but the choice remained real and present. Look for example at the temptations in: Matt.4:1-11 and consider this verse:

**1Cor.10: 13 ***"No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. "

This points out that we too COULD like God NEVER choose to sin. The diference is not the choice but the will to avoid al sin, always. We fail in GREAT part by a “defective” will that bears the effects of Orginal sin.

**